Notice: Undefined index: Bumped in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1850
Notice: Undefined index: SecondBoardID in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1851
Notice: Undefined index: LatestPoster in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1852 Nature & Wildlife - Photography - FM Forums
Here is another short-eared owl frame from British Columbia. I hope you like it
1DXII 400DO II + 2X III. ISO 2000. f/8 at 1/2000sec. hand held. processed with DPP 4.5
If you are bird photographer you may also like this article on my blog about "crop factor" a topic that is discussed very frequently but often misunderstood. Since I get questions about this all the time, I figured I write a short article to clear things up a bit. I hope you find it useful.
First of all excellent image Ari.
Secondly, I read your article twice to internalize it and conceptualize the context. You busted a myth of magnification theory with cropping sensor ....Excellent
For my understanding and argument sake - Why this magnification theory develop? is it because the crop sensor sees a smaller portion of the projected image and people develop a theory of magnification as per APS-C 1.6X.
I mean 400mm lens become 560mm (400X1.6x). Is this math stands as per pixel calculation with EF and APS_C sensor.
Just curious how close you were to the bird when taken? A lot of people dream of owning great wildlife gear but I wonder if more should be said on the "art" of getting close. I know for myself that great gear would not be enough and I would need to work on my outdoor skills for lack of a better term.
Feb 16, 2017 at 10:10 AM
Notice: Undefined index: adsensetopicmiddle in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewtopic.php on line 1500
Just curious how close you were to the bird when taken? A lot of people dream of owning great wildlife gear but I wonder if more should be said on the "art" of getting close. I know for myself that great gear would not be enough and I would need to work on my outdoor skills for lack of a better term.
Getting close is better than any money spent on gear. But it isn't always possible depending on location (side of a cliff, restricted private land) and even with all the best stalking technique in the world some species have a very defined limit unless you setup before sunrise in a blind.
My kayak was my best gear purchase last year but even then certain ducks like mallards, pintails and buffelheads are not tolerant of the kayak and I've had better pictures from land of those species. Still for my loon family the kayak got frame filling shots at 300mm that could never have been replicated from land even with my 1200mm lens.
skseet wrote:
First of all excellent image Ari.
Secondly, I read your article twice to internalize it and conceptualize the context. You busted a myth of magnification theory with cropping sensor ....Excellent
For my understanding and argument sake - Why this magnification theory develop? is it because the crop sensor sees a smaller portion of the projected image and people develop a theory of magnification as per APS-C 1.6X.
I mean 400mm lens become 560mm (400X1.6x). Is this math stands as per pixel calculation with EF and APS_C sensor.
Regards
Subrat
Hi Subart, the myth stems from the fact that crop sensor cameras often have smaller pixels than FF cameras. This is because every generation of camera electronics can only handle certain number of pixels in terms of readout I?O speed. so small sensor cameras end up with smaller pixels.
As I explain in the article a 400mm lens never becomes a 560mm lens.
Just curious how close you were to the bird when taken? A lot of people dream of owning great wildlife gear but I wonder if more should be said on the "art" of getting close. I know for myself that great gear would not be enough and I would need to work on my outdoor skills for lack of a better term.
arbitrage wrote:
Getting close is better than any money spent on gear......
+1
And without intending to hijack this thread, for online (and printed) information, the gear/fieldcraft ratio is probably a log greater than the 1dx/7d2 pixel size ratio. Arash's article on "how to get close" is excellent, as is Chapter 8 in Bill Majoros' online book. (Gear gets old; fieldcraft does not).
Back on point--that's a fantastic SEO frame, Arash; I enjoy your articles as much (sometimes more) for the images as for the technical content.
thanks Greg, I agree 100% that the best gear in the world cannot produce a keeper from a bird that's a quarter mile away, no amount of pixels will help when the bird is too far. getting closer will give much better results even with modest equipment.
